Does one alleged act of violence prove Palestine Action should have been proscribed?
Share this post:
Is this is an attempt to show the world that Palestine Action really should have been proscribed?
Here’s the BBC:
“A police sergeant was left unable to drive, shower or dress herself after a Palestine Action activist allegedly hit her with a sledgehammer during a break-in at an Israeli defence firm’s UK site, a trial has heard.
“Six people are accused of using a prison van to break into Elbit Systems UK factory near Bristol armed with weapons and pyrotechnics in the early hours of August 6 last year.
“Sgt Kate Evans told Woolwich Crown Court the injury left her with “severe pain”. She was off work for three months.
“Charlotte Head, 29, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, Fatema Rajwani, 21, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, de
“Mr Corner denies a further charge of causing grievous bodily harm to Sgt Kate Evans.”
There is evidence that Palestine Action has acknowledged violent tactics — including using tools like sledgehammers — but that doesn’t mean activists or the group’s organisers approve of assault and battery.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Sabre-rattling over Russian ships near the UK is misleading the public
Share this post:
Reports about Russian ships being intercepted by the Royal Navy are missing something very important: the law.
Here’s the latest incident, as reported by the BBC:
“Two Russian warships were intercepted in the English Channel by the Royal Navy, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has said.
“In the latest incident involving Russia’s ships entering waters around the UK, HMS Severn headed off the RFN Stoikiy, a corvette and Yelnya, a tanker, as they sailed west through the Dover Strait into the English Channel in the past fortnight.
“Last week, it emerged that the Russian spy ship Yantar was spotted off the coast of Scotland and it used lasers to disrupt RAF pilots tracking its movements.”
The reporting makes it seem these Russian warships were somewhere they didn’t belong – but the facts do not bear this out.
These ships were in international waters and had every right to be there.
Here’s what you aren’t being told…
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Nathan Gill shows us Reform UK’s popularity is all about protest – and there are better options
Share this post:
Why is Reform UK on line to form the next government when things like this happen?
Here are the details, as described by the BBC:
“Nathan Gill, the disgraced former leader of [Reform UK] in Wales… received a 10-and-a-half year [prison] sentence on 21 November after admitting to taking around £40,000 in bribes for pro-Russia interviews and speeches.
“Reform UK head of policy Zia Yusuf… said that he had never met Gill, and all he knew of him was what he had read in the newspapers, saying his actions should not “besmirch” Reform UK.
“It comes after the Prime Minister Keir Starmer challenged Reform UK leader Nigel Farage to set up an investigation into Reform UK’s Russian links.”
The issue here is that Nathan Gill is only the latest in a long line of Reform representatives who have been caught in wrongdoing.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Other high-profile cases include:
Rupert Lowe, who was suspended due to allegations including bullying in his Parliamentary office and making verbal threats of violence against then-party chair Yusuf. The Metropolitan Police opened a probe into the threat allegations.
James McMurdock, former Reform UK MP for South Basildon & East Thurrock, is under investigation (at the time of writing) for allegations relating to Covid-19 bounce back loans.
Craig Campbell, the party’s former Scotland organiser, was sacked due to familial links with loyalist paramilitaries (his father and uncle were jailed members of the UVF) and for posting inflammatory material on social media.
Multiple Reform UK members of Kent County Council have been expelled or suspended for “bringing the party into disrepute” or “dishonest and deceptive behaviour.”
And Shropshire Cllr Donna Edmunds was suspended under allegations that she planned to defect to another right-wing party, and there are claims about far-right/Islamophobic content among Reform councillors more broadly.
Some of these are very serious criminal cases (Gill, McMurdock); others are internal party misconduct (councillors), or reputational issues (paramilitary links).
But they are not isolated incidents – the fact that these are multiple people across different levels (MPs, councillors, organisers) suggests there is a pattern of problematic figures.
These cases raise real questions about Reform UK’s candidate-selection procedures and internal governance. If a party is projecting itself as disciplined and principled, repeated scandals undermine that.
For voters, these are more than PR problems; they could indicate systemic risks around judgement, foreign influence, or ethical oversight.
The key issue here is not that Reform UK is suddenly seen as “trustworthy” or competent — it isn’t, as the Nathan Gill case makes glaringly obvious.
No – Reform UK’s appeal to voters is largely protest-driven. Let me break it down clearly:
Protest voting drives their momentum: Reform UK often benefits when voters are frustrated with the mainstream parties (Labour and the Conservatives).
People may feel “none of the above” represents their interests, so they use Reform UK to send a message.
This is a classic case of a party riding the wave of dissatisfaction, not merit.
High-profile scandals don’t always hurt protest parties immediately: Parties like Reform UK can survive scandals that would sink mainstream parties because many of their voters don’t actually vote for competence or integrity.
It’s anti-establishment sentiment that fuels their rise, not trust in their leadership.
Reform UK has media visibility and strong personalities: Figures like Nigel Farage give the party a recognizable face, even if controversies swirl around it.
Farage’s own history with Russia Today or Brexit-related controversies doesn’t necessarily deter the anti-mainstream voter — it may even reinforce the sense that he’s “outside the system” and therefore different.
Mainstream parties are failing to offer alternatives: When Labour or the Tories are seen as incompetent, self-serving, or disconnected from voters’ immediate concerns (like the cost of living, immigration, or national identity), the electorate looks elsewhere.
Reform UK positions itself as the “disruptor” and can absorb protest votes, even if its actual platform or leadership track record is shaky.
What we are observing is a classic protest-party effect.
It doesn’t mean Reform UK is inherently trustworthy or capable of governing; it’s simply the outlet for voter anger.
From This Writer’s point of view as an observer, the Greens and Your Party should take note – because the prize is there for the taking, it seems.
Any party that can convincingly position itself as both a credible alternative and a principled option stands to pick up that same wave of protest votes — but with the added advantage of actually being trustworthy and policy-driven.
Reform UK’s rise is more about dissatisfaction with the system than admiration for their record.
Or am I mistaken?
Share this post:
Rail fares in England will be frozen – but it could have been done before. Here’s why it wasn’t
Share this post:
Rail fares in England will be frozen in January, for the first time in 30 years – but the big question is: why didn’t the government do it before?
If you think the answer has anything to do with rail re-nationalisation – you’re mistaken!
Here’s the BBC:
“Rail fares in England are to be frozen next year for the first time in 30 years, the government has announced.
“The freeze until March 2027 will apply to regulated fares, which includes season tickets and off-peak returns.
“The most recent fare rise, in March 2025, was 4.6%. Rail fares traditionally have gone up in January, based on the July rate of the retail price index (RPI) + 1% – although this formula has not always been followed. Since 2021, the annual increase has come in March instead of January.
“About 45% of rail fares are regulated by the government in England, Wales and Scotland – but the freeze only relates to travel in England. The announcement also only applies to services run by England-based train operating companies.
“The transport secretary said it was part of “wider plans to rebuild Great British Railways”.
“Great British Railways is a public body which is in the process of being set up, and is part of the government’s plans to bring parts of the railway system into public ownership.”
The part about Great British Railways is, in fact, irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the reason the government can freeze rail fares.
Would you like to know the real reason it can?
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Pollster offers four choices to replace Starmer – but NONE of them have Labour values
Share this post:
A new opinion poll has suggested four possible replacements for Keir Starmer as leader of the Labour Party – but there’s one big problem: none of them offer any hope of returning to the values that made the party great – and that it has abandoned.
Here’s The Guardian:
“Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband, Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting would all win a head-to-head leadership contest against Keir Starmer, according to a poll of Labour members.
“Research conducted by Survation for LabourList found that Burnham and Rayner would defeat the prime minister by considerable margins, while Streeting and Miliband would have a slight advantage but within the margin of error.
“The poll also found 54% of members said there should be a new Labour leader in place before the next general election. And 41% of those who backed Starmer for the leadership in 2020 said a new leader should be in place, with 40% wanting him to stay.”
There’s one simple fault in the poll, and the philosophy behind it: it does not question whether any of the proposed replacements would actually represent the politics of most Labour Party members.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
